Simply put, in civil actions, criminal convictions may be admissible as evidence of the facts on which the conviction was based and have a collateral estoppel effect on facts found or admitted in the case.

Increasingly aware of the burden on victims to relitigate duplicative facts in civil cases, several states have enacted legislation paving the way to a more efficient means to civil recovery. For example, in Alabama, if a defendant is convicted of a crime, it is conclusively determined that the defendant is liable for any pecuniary damages the victim suffered in a subsequent civil action.

Thanks, Rick. As you well know there is so much to this and so it is important that we talk about it in detail as often as we can...so feel free.

The biggest hurdle will be the physical-psychological shock pervading a person during the encountering, enduring, and evading a life threatening violent attack_ I know you and I have had some personal experience with this_ there will be _ Confusion ...a state of mind commonly experienced by an intended victim who has survived a life or death encounter,be it a defensive situation or a sudden terrible accident.

I have investigated dozens upon dozens of fatalities of every kind, just about...in my work as a catastrophic investigator. I would get calls 24/7 to immediately respond to the scene of the events, finding myself in the midst of chaos along with police and Osha investigators.

The most common reaction of the 'parties to the event' was utter confusion,including remembering events out of sequence, exaggerating the importance of triviality, forgetting important events due to short term memory loss, and blabbing nonsense to investigators later denied to have been said. Everyone thinks they will be the exception, but it never is.

Also what people don't realize is that _physically_ the adrenalin rush which supercharged the body has given way to a precipitous decline in energy, and a foggy mindstate.

All the people the person may have talked to, immediately after the event, will be subjected to subpoena to testify as to what they heard. This is admissible as evidence because of the 'Res Gestae' exception of the hearsay rule....

[Latin, Things done.] Secondhand statements considered trustworthy for the purpose of admission as evidence in a lawsuit when repeated by a witness because they were made spontaneously and concurrently with an event.

When you shoot somebody, unless you have ice water in your veins, you will be going through various stress reactions. Some of you may be in shock, others will be distraught that they just took a life, others may be enraged that some bad guy just threatened their children, but whatever your reaction, you will not be in a calm state of mind.

It is a medical fact that adrenalin affects our higher brain functions. You will tend to forget details, some of which may be very important, or even worse, your brain will fill in the forgotten blanks with facts that will later be shown to be incorrect.

Quote:

"Officer, he attacked me, I was in fear for my life, so I shot[hit him] him." That is it. Do not start to babble to the police. Do not give any detailsas to yor shooting/hitting...etc.Do not try to explain everything at the time, withdraw into a 'cocoon' ...

They will continue to question you. At that point you will politely tell them that you are not going to answer any more questions until you have your attorney present...and request medical care for your injuries and or confusion.

Thanks, Rick. Have seen this one before, but everytime I see it again, i learn something new.

The problem here is that in reality...sticking to what we know we should not do/say...to the police_is almost an impossibility as we will be a different person at that moment than we are now. In the grip of mental turmoil it is like we want to ...need to...tell our side of the story to whomever will listen.

Clearing up there intention is you're first goal, establishing them as unreasonable, reading the intent

They mention in the link the reasonable Man theory , I endorse the concept of establishing the unreasonableness of the attacker .

I teach this as simply a call to action , to act on messages and be assertive under duress.

while I say assertive I do not mean aggresive , too establish a fence , declare your boundrys and awareness and concerns , and make any further action on the EBG part a clear escalation .

in the decision making process this is the orient step , if you cannot remove yourself from the threat , establishing there unreasonableness is the next step(if they are hindering your escape or attacking such unreasonableness has been established you can move straight to decision/tactics/action)

this is not a conversation , but a search for information , all physical and verbal ques need to be heard , a establishment of right .

this is a difficult and highly debatable area , and far more to do with ones own personality than tactics , but the facts are action brings satisfaction , and is the simplest tool to deal with anxiety , and to aid awareness the task to orient the simplest IMHO.

personal skills abilitys , de-escalation tactics , pattern interupts , etc etc can all be used , but the goal is always to orient and establish intent/need.

teaching self defence from any other veiw point is irresposnisble and flawed IMHO .

there are many other factors and angles , but probably better not discussed on the internet and for more personal transission , as misunderstanding could be worse than knowing nothing .

It is no con-incidence that the reasonable man measure is also a legal measure

your self defence contract should mirror your beleifs and ideally the legal system you operate under , to teach responsibly it must mirror the legal system you operate under .

how you compose yourself set boundrys and relate and orient are skills right throughout life , and theres lots of room for practice .

Van you are correct we want to tell out side and not look guilty by staying silent.

The various media has made refusing to answer a question an admission of guilt.

So we should at least strive to keep it simple – I was defending myself – BUT after saying that we then must be able to back up that it was reasonable to do so because we just pleaded guilty.

But here’s the problem- here we are a bunch of at minimum martial artists struggle to grasp this concept of violence and how to perceive it and survive it.

We not only want to understand it but we want to study it and those taking part in a self defence reality forum want the dirty muddy crappy truth about it all.

And we struggle, we disagree and we discuss.

So what does the average person who might be sitting on your jury understand?

People still think cops should shoot guns out of people’s hands not understanding how many shots miss even centre mass at 10 feet under stress.

How do we articulate to those who have no grasp of violence other than the fantasy of TV, movies and books the reality of what happened when we struggle here with even each other and we all have some understanding and are searching for more?

Really good posts, thank you. Think for a moment what anyone of us, now discussing these matters on this forum, will feel like after surviving an attack.

There we are, traumatized physically and mentally in police custody, our faculties seemingly diminishing, all kinds of fears emerging which include fear of entrapment, fear of not being able to speak coherently, fear of not being understood, fear of being misunderstood, fear of going to jail, fear of losing all your savings…it goes on and on in your foggy brain_ while under police interrogation and being recorded.

There will be a deep feeling of loneliness, of dismay…you want to go home but you can't and you don’t know when you will ever be able to. You are now a trapped animal.

It is at that moment that you are likely to say things without even knowing you said them…because you just want out of this torture of confinement and emotional pounding, dry mouth and cold sweat running down your armpits.

I have seen grown men just break down and cry during a simple legal deposition in civil discovery cases.

It also helps to understand how police interrogations are conducted, i.e., the 'Reid Technique' that most of us are not familiar with.

"It should be noted here that in the United States, if at any point during the interrogation the suspect does somehow manage to ask for a lawyer or invoke his right to silence, the interrogation has to stop immediately. That's why it's so important to interrupt the suspect's attempts to speak in the initial stages -- if he invokes his rights, the interrogation is over."

2. " When You've Got CompanyThe Just Cause Law Collective warns that if you're arrested with friends, you've got to keep a cool head. Decide beforehand that no one's going to say a word until everyone has a lawyer, and remind yourself that police will try to play on the natural paranoia that arises when people are separated. The Collective offers a further warning regarding a group arrest: When you have your strategy discussion, don't do it in the back seat of a police car. If the officers stuffed you all into one car and walked away, they're recording you. "

3. ConfrontationThe detective presents the facts of the case and informs the suspect of the evidence against him. This evidence might be real, or it might be made up.

The detective typically states in a confident manner that the suspect is involved in the crime. The suspect's stress level starts increasing, and the interrogator may move around the room and invade the suspect's personal space to increase the discomfort.

If the suspect starts fidgeting, licking his lips and or grooming himself (running his hand through his hair, for instance), the detective takes these as indicators of deception and knows he's on the right track.

4. Getting the suspect's attentionAt this point, the suspect should be frustrated and unsure of himself. He may be looking for someone to help him escape the situation. The interrogator tries to capitalize on that insecurity by pretending to be the suspect's ally.

He'll try to appear even more sincere in his continued theme development, and he may get physically closer to the suspect to make it harder for the suspect to detach from the situation. The interrogator may offer physical gestures of camaraderie and concern, such as touching the suspect's shoulder or patting his back.

5. This the most critical:

" The suspect loses resolveIf the suspect's body language indicates surrender -- his head in his hands, his elbows on his knees, his shoulders hunched -- the interrogator seizes the opportunity to start leading the suspect into confession.

He'll start transitioning from theme development to motive alternatives (see the next step) that force the suspect to choose a reason why he committed the crime. At this stage, the interrogator makes every effort to establish eye contact with the suspect to increase the suspect's stress level and desire to escape. If, at this point, the suspect cries, the detective takes this as a positive indicator of guilt."

~~

Ask...how well will I really do?

Trainers in the LFI programs told us to actually place our fingers in our mouth and keep the tongue from flapping.

In a more general way, a lot of the human rights concerns surrounding police interrogation have to do with the fact that psychological interrogation techniques bear an uncanny resemblance to "brainwashing" techniques. The interrogator is attempting to influence the suspect without the suspect's consent, which is considered an unethical use of psychological tactics. A lot of the techniques used to cause discomfort, confusion and insecurity in the brainwashing process are similar to those used in interrogation: Invading a suspect's personal space Not allowing the suspect to speak Using contrasting alternatives

The more stress a suspect experiences, the less likely he is to think critically and independently, making him far more susceptible to suggestion. This is even more true when the suspect is a minor or is mentally ill, because he may be poorly equipped to recognize or fight off manipulative tactics. A process designed to cause someone so much stress that he'll confess just to escape the situation is a process that leaves itself open to false confessions. Researchers estimate between 65 and 300 false confessions per year in the United States.

Just videotaping the confession itself can do little to ensure the legality of the process that led up to it, and critics of police interrogation techniques point to mandatory taping of all interrogations from start to finish as a step in the right direction.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum